The Court allowed a sentence appeal from a six-year sentence for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, reducing the sentence to four-and-a-half years after finding that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the appellant's Gladue factors. The Court held that while the sentencing judge identified the appellant's Indigenous heritage, intergenerational trauma, and substance use disorder, the analysis treated these factors as mitigating background rather than as a distinct lens through which moral blameworthiness must be assessed under R. v. Ipeelee. The Court emphasized that systemic and background factors require sentencing judges to consider whether different sanctions or restorative approaches may be appropriate. The reduced sentence reflects a properly calibrated balance between denunciation, deterrence, and the requirement to consider all reasonable alternatives to incarceration for Indigenous offenders.

The Court dismissed an appeal from conviction for sexual assault, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to deference and grounded in the evidence. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by treating minor injuries as confirmatory evidence without expert testimony and by applying uneven scrutiny between his credibility and the complainant's credibility. The Court held that there was an evidentiary basis for the trial judge's findings and that the arguments invited an impermissible reweighing of evidence. The Court emphasized that credibility findings deserve deference absent palpable and overriding error, applying the principles from R. v. G.F. and R. v. Kruk.

The Court dismissed a Crown appeal from an acquittal on firearms charges, upholding the trial judge's exclusion of a loaded handgun under s. 24(2) of the Charter. The Crown had argued that the trial judge gave insufficient weight to the seriousness of the offence and the reliability of the evidence. The Court held that the trial judge properly applied the Grant framework and was entitled to conclude that the cumulative effect of multiple Charter breaches — including arbitrary detention, an unlawful search, and a clear breach of s. 10(b) — weighed decisively in favour of exclusion. The Court emphasized that appellate deference to s. 24(2) determinations is significant where, as here, the trial judge engaged in a careful, properly framed analysis.